Literally all ratings for this film in the past month stem from a single showing at the New Beverly Theater in Los Angeles, that's literally how difficult it is to find. It's a shame too because this is truly one of the funniest, off the wall, and quotable Hong Kong grindhouse films I have ever seen. I want to show it to everyone I know and can't so whomp whomp on that. If you get the chance to watch this wonderful, zany horror duo please do so immediately.
Reviews
39 Reviews
God's Own Country
(2017)
Beautiful Love, Beautiful Yorkshire
14 February 2019
Films centering around LGBT characters have historically dealt with the harsh realities of the queer identity: ostracization, abuse, sexual assault, AIDS, disenfranchisement, and prejudice. The most popular gay male romantic film of the past twenty years followed two cowboys who only found peace high in the mountains during the 1960s-1980s and feared violence for being who they were. Fast forward to 2019, a year where the president is a white supremacist who wants to do gay, queer, and trans folks harm and it's hard to find stories about being queer or trans that aren't wrapped in societal strife. While we have a better range of choices for our gay love stories, and there are ground-breaking movies and television shows coming out every day, God's Own Country feels more significant than anything I have seen in a long time.
The story starts in Yorkshire with the Saxby family. Johnny (O'Connor) is a sullen gay twentysomething who is stuck working the family farm after his father (Hart) suffers a stroke. His grandmother (Jones) helps as best as she can but she is just another mouth to feed. Though he wishes to leave the rolling hills of his homeland he is trapped, so he goes out every night until he becomes sloppy drunk, screwing a local gay single occasionally. So enters Romanian farmhand Gheorghe (Secareanu), a young man who brings tenderness and love into the home for the first time in a long while. While breeching lamps in the spring season the two men fall in love, Gheorghe showing Johnny how to love and be loved for the first time in his life.
The major selling point of the film is that it's a gay story that doesn't highlight the difficulties of being a gay couple. A much bigger aspect of the story involves British xenophobia towards immigrants, which was the major reason for Brexit. Much of the physical violence seen in the film happens because Gheorghe faces constant racism, from Johnny initially and then at a local pub. Yorkshire provides a gorgeous scenic landscape for much of the film, all rolling verdant hills and windswept trees. There is a feeling of being absolutely alone in the wild tall grasses as the characters stand at the summit of their insular world. The film is also quite accurate in that it shows real farm life, including scenes of actual animal births. Director Francis Lee (this is his directorial debut) worked his family farm in Yorkshire growing up and he is also gay.
This film has seen worldwide critical and commercial success because it tells a traditional story about having to grow up quickly in a world that throws everything at you time and time again. Johnny Saxby is a familiar character, one who must understand his own shortcomings in order to do right by his family and keep the love of his life. It's a story about maturity, an attribute that is becoming harder to attain in a world where burnout culture is the regular topic of conversation amongst millennials and "adulting" is a common verb. It's nice to see a male character go through this transformation while shedding toxic characteristics and finding queer love.
The story starts in Yorkshire with the Saxby family. Johnny (O'Connor) is a sullen gay twentysomething who is stuck working the family farm after his father (Hart) suffers a stroke. His grandmother (Jones) helps as best as she can but she is just another mouth to feed. Though he wishes to leave the rolling hills of his homeland he is trapped, so he goes out every night until he becomes sloppy drunk, screwing a local gay single occasionally. So enters Romanian farmhand Gheorghe (Secareanu), a young man who brings tenderness and love into the home for the first time in a long while. While breeching lamps in the spring season the two men fall in love, Gheorghe showing Johnny how to love and be loved for the first time in his life.
The major selling point of the film is that it's a gay story that doesn't highlight the difficulties of being a gay couple. A much bigger aspect of the story involves British xenophobia towards immigrants, which was the major reason for Brexit. Much of the physical violence seen in the film happens because Gheorghe faces constant racism, from Johnny initially and then at a local pub. Yorkshire provides a gorgeous scenic landscape for much of the film, all rolling verdant hills and windswept trees. There is a feeling of being absolutely alone in the wild tall grasses as the characters stand at the summit of their insular world. The film is also quite accurate in that it shows real farm life, including scenes of actual animal births. Director Francis Lee (this is his directorial debut) worked his family farm in Yorkshire growing up and he is also gay.
This film has seen worldwide critical and commercial success because it tells a traditional story about having to grow up quickly in a world that throws everything at you time and time again. Johnny Saxby is a familiar character, one who must understand his own shortcomings in order to do right by his family and keep the love of his life. It's a story about maturity, an attribute that is becoming harder to attain in a world where burnout culture is the regular topic of conversation amongst millennials and "adulting" is a common verb. It's nice to see a male character go through this transformation while shedding toxic characteristics and finding queer love.
Like Father
(2018)
Royal Caribbean Commercial
14 February 2019
Before I get into my criticism I would like to highlight the fact that this film was written and directed by a woman. The director in question is Lauren Miller Rogen, and don't be fooled by that last name, this woman has earned her way through Hollywood all on her own. From working on short indie projects through the early 2000s, to having a hand in her husband, Seth Rogen's films, to co-writing the undervalued yet super funny comedy For a Good Time, Call... Lauren Miller Rogen has been working her tail off for a good fifteen years. Like Father is her directorial debut, though I hope she continues directing in the future.
Now, I'm not going to say that I absolutely adored this film. A lot of people recommended it to me based solely on the father-daughter relationship between Rachel (Bell) and Harry (Grammar), and I would say that that is the strongest aspect of the script. Bell and Grammar are each uber talented people who have starred in classic television comedies and are beloved by almost everyone. While there are no huge comedic moments or funny zings (besides the Newlywed Game scene) they inhabit real and complicated characters who have major flaws, and that in of itself is very entertaining to see. They're mending their estranged relationship aboard what was supposed to be Rachel's honeymoon cruise, and in the process understand each other for the first time in their lives. It was especially interesting to see Rachel fail when confronted with reality after being aboard the cruise, wavering on the emotional journey we expect her to take to heart. Seth Rogen also plays a love interest named Jeff, and an ensemble supporting cast play the other passengers, including the always funny Paul W. Downs (Broad City).
My main issue with the film is that it's a giant ad for Royal Caribbean cruises. I understand that product placement is a huge part of filmmaking (Jack and Jill, The Internship, Sex Tape) and probably made this film possible, but it felt really gross. There are so many common problems with cruises that aren't addressed, including food poisoning, the quick spread of norovirus, and the lack of safety measures for passengers who go overboard. While many people take cruises without incident every year, and these issues don't need to be front and center, it did need to be acknowledged that certain scenes were written just for Royal Caribbean Cruises to directly advertise to Netflix viewers. I doubt anyone wants to see a future where services and products advertise directly into our homes through Netflix, as they already advertise to us through any means necessary.
The only other criticism I have is that we have seen the overworked female character before. We have seen her struggle and fail, and her achievements perceived to be less important compared to love and friendship and family. Even though I thought a lot of Rachel's self-reflection was truly inspiring in a lot of ways, it felt weird that it had to start with her as a harried professional tied to her cell phone. Maybe it's just time for us all to admit that women who want to succeed aren't broken and work our ways backwards. Until that day I guess I can at least enjoy the shots of the ocean whizzing by and scenes of Seth Rogen awkwardly flirting.
Now, I'm not going to say that I absolutely adored this film. A lot of people recommended it to me based solely on the father-daughter relationship between Rachel (Bell) and Harry (Grammar), and I would say that that is the strongest aspect of the script. Bell and Grammar are each uber talented people who have starred in classic television comedies and are beloved by almost everyone. While there are no huge comedic moments or funny zings (besides the Newlywed Game scene) they inhabit real and complicated characters who have major flaws, and that in of itself is very entertaining to see. They're mending their estranged relationship aboard what was supposed to be Rachel's honeymoon cruise, and in the process understand each other for the first time in their lives. It was especially interesting to see Rachel fail when confronted with reality after being aboard the cruise, wavering on the emotional journey we expect her to take to heart. Seth Rogen also plays a love interest named Jeff, and an ensemble supporting cast play the other passengers, including the always funny Paul W. Downs (Broad City).
My main issue with the film is that it's a giant ad for Royal Caribbean cruises. I understand that product placement is a huge part of filmmaking (Jack and Jill, The Internship, Sex Tape) and probably made this film possible, but it felt really gross. There are so many common problems with cruises that aren't addressed, including food poisoning, the quick spread of norovirus, and the lack of safety measures for passengers who go overboard. While many people take cruises without incident every year, and these issues don't need to be front and center, it did need to be acknowledged that certain scenes were written just for Royal Caribbean Cruises to directly advertise to Netflix viewers. I doubt anyone wants to see a future where services and products advertise directly into our homes through Netflix, as they already advertise to us through any means necessary.
The only other criticism I have is that we have seen the overworked female character before. We have seen her struggle and fail, and her achievements perceived to be less important compared to love and friendship and family. Even though I thought a lot of Rachel's self-reflection was truly inspiring in a lot of ways, it felt weird that it had to start with her as a harried professional tied to her cell phone. Maybe it's just time for us all to admit that women who want to succeed aren't broken and work our ways backwards. Until that day I guess I can at least enjoy the shots of the ocean whizzing by and scenes of Seth Rogen awkwardly flirting.
Oklahoma City
(2017)
White Bred Terrorism
26 April 2017
I don't remember Oklahoma City, or Waco, or Ruby Ridge. These events, if they were in my young subconscious mind at all, were crowded out by 9/11, which happened when I was only ten years old. For a generation that has been inundated with images of terrorism, violence, and war, it's difficult to grasp just how explosive and unjust this event was, and how it shocked the nation to learn that born and bred Americans could be just as responsible for the destruction of the country's goodwill than foreign invaders.
This film was directed by Emmy winning PBS documentarian Barak Goodman (Scottsboro: An American Tragedy). He begins the film's narrative at Oklahoma City, but then flashes back to the inception of the Aryan Nation in the mid-to-late eighties, and the ensuing terrorist institutions that created a platform for an army vet named Timothy McVeigh. Tracing this critical history of white held terrorism within the United States, we see the quick succession of violent white men who have taken arms against their government, and the almost unending paranoia that it created. People like David Koresh and Randy Weaver were the inspiration for an angry, xenophobic young man without many options and a plethora of military knowledge at his disposal.
McVeigh chose the building because he wanted retribution for those who stood against the government and died because of it. In our current political climate terrorism is almost a give-in, an accepted cross to bear in our everyday lives. McVeigh was the first major figure in a long line of American born white men who have taken arms against their own citizenry (Eric Robert Rudolph, Dylann Roof, Wade Michael Page, and thirty-six others since Oklahoma City). This documentary not only sheds light on the horrific act of three disillusioned youths, but the greater trend of discontented, hate- filled teens who later become violent terrorists. These events are more common than ever, and it's not a problem that goes away with prayers and acceptance. It stops because we don't let it happen again. We protect our fellow man, our children, and those who don't have a voice. This film is illuminating in all the right ways, and emotionally devastating in a million others.
This film was directed by Emmy winning PBS documentarian Barak Goodman (Scottsboro: An American Tragedy). He begins the film's narrative at Oklahoma City, but then flashes back to the inception of the Aryan Nation in the mid-to-late eighties, and the ensuing terrorist institutions that created a platform for an army vet named Timothy McVeigh. Tracing this critical history of white held terrorism within the United States, we see the quick succession of violent white men who have taken arms against their government, and the almost unending paranoia that it created. People like David Koresh and Randy Weaver were the inspiration for an angry, xenophobic young man without many options and a plethora of military knowledge at his disposal.
McVeigh chose the building because he wanted retribution for those who stood against the government and died because of it. In our current political climate terrorism is almost a give-in, an accepted cross to bear in our everyday lives. McVeigh was the first major figure in a long line of American born white men who have taken arms against their own citizenry (Eric Robert Rudolph, Dylann Roof, Wade Michael Page, and thirty-six others since Oklahoma City). This documentary not only sheds light on the horrific act of three disillusioned youths, but the greater trend of discontented, hate- filled teens who later become violent terrorists. These events are more common than ever, and it's not a problem that goes away with prayers and acceptance. It stops because we don't let it happen again. We protect our fellow man, our children, and those who don't have a voice. This film is illuminating in all the right ways, and emotionally devastating in a million others.
The Late Bloomer
(2016)
Made for Juvenile Adults
26 April 2017
There was a lot of potential for this romantic comedy, but it was squashed by a ridiculous set-up, less than stellar jokes, and little to no payoff. Yes, this was based on the true story of rookie hockey player and television personality Kevin Baker, but much of the original story was changed, and the end result is clumsy and half- baked. Instead of really thinking through the emotional and physical extremes of this situation, the writers went for a more juvenile approach and simply threw in all their grossest jokes, hoping that something would stick. What we get is a boring, trite, ungodly mess that could have been a raunchier and more heartfelt film.
The premise of the film finds sex therapist Dr. Peter Newmans trying to understand why people follow their sexual urges when they could get so much more out of life. At the same time he is in love with his neighbor (Snow), who is portrayed as a bland love interest with one characteristic: she likes to cook. His friends are played by Kumail Nanjiani and Beck Bennett, who prove to be the only semi-funny thing about this film, yet are underutilized and characterized as cavemen narcissists. When Peter is hit in the testicles during a pick-up basketball game he is rushed to the hospital, where it is revealed that he has a tumor pushing on his pituitary gland and he hasn't gone through puberty. The rest of the film shows him going through puberty in three weeks, at the age of thirty. While this is an interesting premise it's strange that they make him a sex therapist, when he hasn't had any sex (he isn't able to get an erection) and he hasn't gone through the steps of puberty at all. This choice makes the rest of the film feel unwieldy and downright convoluted.
This is the first fictional effort of comedian Kevin Pollack, best known for his treasure trove of celebrity impressions. There are five writers on this film (including "George Lucas in Love" director Joe Nussbaum) and honestly it feels like it. There is so much testosterone in this film that there isn't much room for dealing with actual emotions, or the complexities of being a teenager in a man's body. Instead of dealing with these issues the film tries its best to be as juvenile and sex minded as possible, including talking extensively about erections, masturbating, acne, and other teenaged qualms. When the film is serious, it's often at other characters' expense.
Honestly I think the movie might have been saved if its lead didn't decide that the way to fix his hormonal issues was to sleep with every woman he finds on Tinder. There's something disgustingly hideous about showing a virginal person suddenly engaging in mass amounts of sex. Though he is a sex therapist (again, why?) it makes little sense that he would immediately throw himself into sex, and with so many different people. It makes the ending that much more ridiculous. And speaking of that ending, why did it need to happen at all? Why was the romantic interest his friend, who he had to win over? Did this film really need a cookie cutter script with a clichéd ending? This was a film about a crazy real life experience that the main character had, and to play it safe seems ridiculous, especially since so much of the original story was changed anyway.
The premise of the film finds sex therapist Dr. Peter Newmans trying to understand why people follow their sexual urges when they could get so much more out of life. At the same time he is in love with his neighbor (Snow), who is portrayed as a bland love interest with one characteristic: she likes to cook. His friends are played by Kumail Nanjiani and Beck Bennett, who prove to be the only semi-funny thing about this film, yet are underutilized and characterized as cavemen narcissists. When Peter is hit in the testicles during a pick-up basketball game he is rushed to the hospital, where it is revealed that he has a tumor pushing on his pituitary gland and he hasn't gone through puberty. The rest of the film shows him going through puberty in three weeks, at the age of thirty. While this is an interesting premise it's strange that they make him a sex therapist, when he hasn't had any sex (he isn't able to get an erection) and he hasn't gone through the steps of puberty at all. This choice makes the rest of the film feel unwieldy and downright convoluted.
This is the first fictional effort of comedian Kevin Pollack, best known for his treasure trove of celebrity impressions. There are five writers on this film (including "George Lucas in Love" director Joe Nussbaum) and honestly it feels like it. There is so much testosterone in this film that there isn't much room for dealing with actual emotions, or the complexities of being a teenager in a man's body. Instead of dealing with these issues the film tries its best to be as juvenile and sex minded as possible, including talking extensively about erections, masturbating, acne, and other teenaged qualms. When the film is serious, it's often at other characters' expense.
Honestly I think the movie might have been saved if its lead didn't decide that the way to fix his hormonal issues was to sleep with every woman he finds on Tinder. There's something disgustingly hideous about showing a virginal person suddenly engaging in mass amounts of sex. Though he is a sex therapist (again, why?) it makes little sense that he would immediately throw himself into sex, and with so many different people. It makes the ending that much more ridiculous. And speaking of that ending, why did it need to happen at all? Why was the romantic interest his friend, who he had to win over? Did this film really need a cookie cutter script with a clichéd ending? This was a film about a crazy real life experience that the main character had, and to play it safe seems ridiculous, especially since so much of the original story was changed anyway.
Into the Inferno
(2016)
Explosively Interesting
18 November 2016
Werner Herzog is a captivating man who has grand pursuits and a varied set of interests. He has made many films since his breakout hit, "Aguirre, the Wrath of God," in 1972, and all of them have either been exceptionally interesting, complex, fantastical, or illuminating in nature. Herzog makes both fiction and non-fiction films that deal with issues as diverse as colonialism, the savageness of the wilderness, ecological disasters, opera, and ski flying. With his newest film for Netflix, Herzog once again shows us that fascination is an oft neglected but empowering feeling that can be applied to numerous aspects of life. He starts us off with the topic of volcanoes, but he becomes much more fascinated with humankind at large, evidenced by his own reticence to even get close to a volcano.
Herzog reels us in with the help of Clive Oppenheimer, a Cambridge University volcanologist that he had previously worked with in the documentary, "Encounters at the End of the World," which was a film about Antarctica. Oppenheimer is a playfully compelling, if timid, guide into the world of volcanoes. He and Herzog travel the world and study volcanoes in Indonesia, Iceland, North Korea, and Ethiopia. At each of these junctures, the cultural importance of the volcano is made the fixture of the film, rather than focusing on hard science. The peoples of these regions all seem to be in awe of volcanoes, and either have a deep fear or respect for what it's capable of. In Ethiopia, a nearby volcano is the key to finding fossils of Paleolithic hominids, the rarest of human fossils. In North Korea the region's fierce patriotism is linked with its local volcano where the leaders Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-Il once stood, proudly displaying to their nation that they were strong and resilient in the face of outside vitriol.
Though some of these excursions seem to undercut the fact that this is a film about volcanoes, this film never bores its audience. Between the panoramic shots of tropical foliage and the drone sequences that pan across villages and volcanoes alike, this is a feast for the eyes. There's a great contrast between the beauty of these regions and the oft-confusing shots of the magma that these ruptures expound with horrifying regularity. The inner regions of volcanoes look both like fire and water, and the magma often looks pitifully tame when it moves slowly down a mountainside, though it is actually a most dangerous force that will destroy all in its path. Herzog talks a bit about a couple who were volcanic photographers and were eventually killed by a fast moving cloud of volcanic ash (at 100 mph). While this tidbit is unprompted, it proves to be yet another interesting facet of these quaking mountaintops. Herzog finds many ways to look at these geographic forces, which can be seen as either benevolent or destructive in power.
Herzog reels us in with the help of Clive Oppenheimer, a Cambridge University volcanologist that he had previously worked with in the documentary, "Encounters at the End of the World," which was a film about Antarctica. Oppenheimer is a playfully compelling, if timid, guide into the world of volcanoes. He and Herzog travel the world and study volcanoes in Indonesia, Iceland, North Korea, and Ethiopia. At each of these junctures, the cultural importance of the volcano is made the fixture of the film, rather than focusing on hard science. The peoples of these regions all seem to be in awe of volcanoes, and either have a deep fear or respect for what it's capable of. In Ethiopia, a nearby volcano is the key to finding fossils of Paleolithic hominids, the rarest of human fossils. In North Korea the region's fierce patriotism is linked with its local volcano where the leaders Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-Il once stood, proudly displaying to their nation that they were strong and resilient in the face of outside vitriol.
Though some of these excursions seem to undercut the fact that this is a film about volcanoes, this film never bores its audience. Between the panoramic shots of tropical foliage and the drone sequences that pan across villages and volcanoes alike, this is a feast for the eyes. There's a great contrast between the beauty of these regions and the oft-confusing shots of the magma that these ruptures expound with horrifying regularity. The inner regions of volcanoes look both like fire and water, and the magma often looks pitifully tame when it moves slowly down a mountainside, though it is actually a most dangerous force that will destroy all in its path. Herzog talks a bit about a couple who were volcanic photographers and were eventually killed by a fast moving cloud of volcanic ash (at 100 mph). While this tidbit is unprompted, it proves to be yet another interesting facet of these quaking mountaintops. Herzog finds many ways to look at these geographic forces, which can be seen as either benevolent or destructive in power.
Wiener-Dog
(2016)
Solondz Out-Weirds Himself Once More
18 November 2016
If you haven't seen anything by Todd Solondz, you have been missing out. Seriously, you have not lived until you have seen the absolutely pitch black comedies that he has directed. Classics such as "Happiness" and "Welcome to the Dollhouse" have been among my favorites for years, and no these are not films concerning happy people, or the fantasies invoked by the image of a child's toy. Todd Solondz captures a spark of the American consciousness that is both upsetting and completely ridiculous. You hope that these people are not real, that these situations do not impact the daily lives of anyone you truly love and cherish, but they absolutely do.
Solondz has been making movies for twenty years but none of them have been as immensely loved as the two I just mentioned. This particular film premiered at Sundance in January and was bought up by IFC and Amazon Studios for VOD release in April. This low key release hasn't lent to great word of mouth, but then again what are you going to say about this film that would make someone willingly watch it? Do you talk about the section where Danny DeVito plays a defeated and morose screen writing professor? The first section that shows the acquisition of the wiener dog and its subsequent sickness via the ingestion of chocolate? (And all the mess that entails) What you should tell people is that it's atmospheric, moody, and self- assured in its stark representations of down and out losers.
Solondz films don't show winners. They show people who deserve far worse than they're getting, or people who are so devastatingly wrong in every aspect of their lives that it's embarrassing to watch them just live them. The characters he chose for this film are each unique in a very different way. Julie Delpy's soft spoken mother consistency tries to break bad news to her child about the facts of life by overtly lying to his face. Terrible, inscrutable words form on her lips and flow out of her in a delivery style that is so blunt that it physically hurts.
Honestly, if you like weird, this is going to be your favorite film of the year. While it doesn't exaggerate its mood with grand effects or strange settings, it's a film that tells the little person's tale. Grandmothers sometimes don't connect with their offspring. Parents sometimes can't trust their children. Making a spontaneous decision can change big aspects of your life. These are the themes that Solondz focuses on to great effect, and though these are small spaces, they produce a grand film.
Solondz has been making movies for twenty years but none of them have been as immensely loved as the two I just mentioned. This particular film premiered at Sundance in January and was bought up by IFC and Amazon Studios for VOD release in April. This low key release hasn't lent to great word of mouth, but then again what are you going to say about this film that would make someone willingly watch it? Do you talk about the section where Danny DeVito plays a defeated and morose screen writing professor? The first section that shows the acquisition of the wiener dog and its subsequent sickness via the ingestion of chocolate? (And all the mess that entails) What you should tell people is that it's atmospheric, moody, and self- assured in its stark representations of down and out losers.
Solondz films don't show winners. They show people who deserve far worse than they're getting, or people who are so devastatingly wrong in every aspect of their lives that it's embarrassing to watch them just live them. The characters he chose for this film are each unique in a very different way. Julie Delpy's soft spoken mother consistency tries to break bad news to her child about the facts of life by overtly lying to his face. Terrible, inscrutable words form on her lips and flow out of her in a delivery style that is so blunt that it physically hurts.
Honestly, if you like weird, this is going to be your favorite film of the year. While it doesn't exaggerate its mood with grand effects or strange settings, it's a film that tells the little person's tale. Grandmothers sometimes don't connect with their offspring. Parents sometimes can't trust their children. Making a spontaneous decision can change big aspects of your life. These are the themes that Solondz focuses on to great effect, and though these are small spaces, they produce a grand film.
Hacksaw Ridge
(2016)
Lots of Heart, but Not Enough Common Sense
18 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Good versus evil is an old concept that makes for the best movies, and Nazis are the ultimate historical evil. From the forties onward Hollywood has created some seriously amazing narratives about American military forces braving the front lines to combat the Axis of Evil, but pacifism rarely enters the narrative. Some people really do believe that any violence, any killing, is absolutely unneeded. People like to forget that FDR waited until Europe had been fighting amongst themselves for three years before intervening, and only after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. (Even after that Canada actually declared war before we did, by one day.)
In the same vein as past war films by Gibson's, this is the real life story of Desmond Doss, a conscientious objector who served as a combat medic at Okinawa with the 77th in May 1945. He fought against his superiors and a court martial in order to serve without a weapon and went on to save between 50-100 lives during a particularly terrible siege of Hacksaw Ridge. The actual story end of Doss' story is much more spectacular, as Doss was eventually shot multiple times and yet gave up his stretcher to a more injured Marine. Then he was left in the field for three hours before a stretcher came for him, and went on to be the first conscientious objector to gain a Medal of Honor.
The film stars Andrew Garfield in the titular role, giving an uneven performance in an uneven film. The whole first of the film feels lazy, as it sways between clichéd moments, over-the-top nostalgic nationalism, and simple corny dialogue that falls flat compared to the obviously superior second half of the film. This section tries to set up why Doss is a conscientious objector, but it does so by giving little information about his life in lieu of a spittle faced performance from Hugo Weaving and a false start between him and his brother. Doss isn't even explained to be a 7th day Adventist until he's at basic training, and the reason he won't raise a rifle isn't explained until ¾ of the way in the film. This information is also prompted by one of several dream sequences, which comes across as purely lazy screen writing. This opinion does not stem from the fact that the film is religious in subtext. When the film dives into its fervor, especially during the battle scenes, it truly resonates on screen. The actual battle scenes are handled with so much care and dedication it's clear that Gibson put most of the effort, and the film's budget, into it. The blood and gore of these scenes truly hits home how gritty and horrifying war can be, but there's still a grand glory to the entire battle that prompts a feeling a patriotism. Everything about these scenes is astounding: the action, costuming, effects, and performances are all top notch in their scope, and they capture the real honesty of what it is to kill or be killed.
It's obvious why this film received a ten minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival: It's the true story of a man who was above and beyond a hero, even if he thwarted many attempts to turn his story into a film during his lifetime. Gibson returned to his roots in an unprecedented sweep of glory, and while I sincerely disbelieve his efforts will yield an Academy award nomination, he has put his foot in the right direction for a grand return to cinema.
In the same vein as past war films by Gibson's, this is the real life story of Desmond Doss, a conscientious objector who served as a combat medic at Okinawa with the 77th in May 1945. He fought against his superiors and a court martial in order to serve without a weapon and went on to save between 50-100 lives during a particularly terrible siege of Hacksaw Ridge. The actual story end of Doss' story is much more spectacular, as Doss was eventually shot multiple times and yet gave up his stretcher to a more injured Marine. Then he was left in the field for three hours before a stretcher came for him, and went on to be the first conscientious objector to gain a Medal of Honor.
The film stars Andrew Garfield in the titular role, giving an uneven performance in an uneven film. The whole first of the film feels lazy, as it sways between clichéd moments, over-the-top nostalgic nationalism, and simple corny dialogue that falls flat compared to the obviously superior second half of the film. This section tries to set up why Doss is a conscientious objector, but it does so by giving little information about his life in lieu of a spittle faced performance from Hugo Weaving and a false start between him and his brother. Doss isn't even explained to be a 7th day Adventist until he's at basic training, and the reason he won't raise a rifle isn't explained until ¾ of the way in the film. This information is also prompted by one of several dream sequences, which comes across as purely lazy screen writing. This opinion does not stem from the fact that the film is religious in subtext. When the film dives into its fervor, especially during the battle scenes, it truly resonates on screen. The actual battle scenes are handled with so much care and dedication it's clear that Gibson put most of the effort, and the film's budget, into it. The blood and gore of these scenes truly hits home how gritty and horrifying war can be, but there's still a grand glory to the entire battle that prompts a feeling a patriotism. Everything about these scenes is astounding: the action, costuming, effects, and performances are all top notch in their scope, and they capture the real honesty of what it is to kill or be killed.
It's obvious why this film received a ten minute standing ovation at the Venice Film Festival: It's the true story of a man who was above and beyond a hero, even if he thwarted many attempts to turn his story into a film during his lifetime. Gibson returned to his roots in an unprecedented sweep of glory, and while I sincerely disbelieve his efforts will yield an Academy award nomination, he has put his foot in the right direction for a grand return to cinema.
Mascots
(2016)
Keep the Mask On
31 October 2016
Christopher Guest has always made seriously hilarious mockumentaries. Beginning with the classic comedy "This is Spinal Tap," Guest has riffed on every subject from local theater, to dog shows, and here he is taking on the world of mascots. He assembled some of his favorite actors (Jane Lynch, Parker Posey, Ed Begley Jr., and John Michael Higgins to name a few) and has released his newest film "Mascots," on Netflix. Though Guest uses the same great set-up as many of his past films, sometimes tried and true methods are more tired and false.
While I have enjoyed all six of Guest's written mockumentaries, this film is a bore-fest from start to finish.For one thing it doesn't feel like a mockumentary. There's too much polish and obvious talking heads flavoring this film for it to feel like anything other than a run of the mill, factory made comedy. Though there are a couple of chuckles to be had at the witty banter, there's nothing truly incisive about the commentary of this film. The world of mascoting might be small, like the dog show circuit, but it's not one that truly lends to a lot of social discourse, or any true characterizations of small town America, which is Guest's bread and butter. It wouldn't surprise me if the entire reason Guest chose mascots is part of the film concerning the Furry community, which is the only truly interesting bit of the film.
Some aspects of the film feel really stale and out of place. The entire plot turn where Cindi Babineaux's school's past is called into question, was clearly unneeded, because it does nothing but hinder the plot and confuse the audience. It's also unclear why Fred Willard and Brad Williams conversation needs to happen at all, except to show a character out of their depth. Actually a lot of the cast feels unneeded or written poorly, including the married couple, The Fist and his straight man, and all the side mascots. The routines aren't even really about supporting a team. They're often influenced more by vaudeville, or clown culture, which doesn't fit into the film at all.
Honestly, this would have made for a better television show. It would be great to see these characters in a more in-depth way, and really explain mascot culture for those of us completely in the dark. Though it's clear much of the cast is trying their darndest to recapture the old magic of "Waiting for Guffman," and "A Mighty Wind," this is probably the lowest Christopher Guest has ever sunk. (Barring "Almost Heroes" of course.)
While I have enjoyed all six of Guest's written mockumentaries, this film is a bore-fest from start to finish.For one thing it doesn't feel like a mockumentary. There's too much polish and obvious talking heads flavoring this film for it to feel like anything other than a run of the mill, factory made comedy. Though there are a couple of chuckles to be had at the witty banter, there's nothing truly incisive about the commentary of this film. The world of mascoting might be small, like the dog show circuit, but it's not one that truly lends to a lot of social discourse, or any true characterizations of small town America, which is Guest's bread and butter. It wouldn't surprise me if the entire reason Guest chose mascots is part of the film concerning the Furry community, which is the only truly interesting bit of the film.
Some aspects of the film feel really stale and out of place. The entire plot turn where Cindi Babineaux's school's past is called into question, was clearly unneeded, because it does nothing but hinder the plot and confuse the audience. It's also unclear why Fred Willard and Brad Williams conversation needs to happen at all, except to show a character out of their depth. Actually a lot of the cast feels unneeded or written poorly, including the married couple, The Fist and his straight man, and all the side mascots. The routines aren't even really about supporting a team. They're often influenced more by vaudeville, or clown culture, which doesn't fit into the film at all.
Honestly, this would have made for a better television show. It would be great to see these characters in a more in-depth way, and really explain mascot culture for those of us completely in the dark. Though it's clear much of the cast is trying their darndest to recapture the old magic of "Waiting for Guffman," and "A Mighty Wind," this is probably the lowest Christopher Guest has ever sunk. (Barring "Almost Heroes" of course.)
The Girl on the Train
(2016)
Disgruntled Passenger
31 October 2016
Paula Hawkins' 2015 novel "The Girl on the Train," wasn't a revelation, but was much needed after the immense popularity of "Gone Girl." Personally I read through it very quickly and found its twists and turns to be exactly what was needed to make for a good, enthralling thriller. The best aspect of the book was the unreliability of the narrator, (Rachel) who was a divorcée alcoholic with a penchant for misery and self-deprecation. Her blackouts serve as a great cloaking device for the mystery, and enable us the audience to suspect almost everyone, including Rachel (Blunt). Though the film tried its darndest to be "Gone Girl," alas it didn't capture the assured grim reality of being an unstable woman, or the darkness of the crime that drives the plot.
The reason I am being so harsh isn't just because this film isn't "Gone Girl," but because it veers away from the book in all the wrong ways. It changes Rachel from a complete mess of a human being into a slightly flawed neurotic; it rushes through its plot, casts a Venezuelan actor to play an Indian psychiatrist, and tries to play up its red herrings to its own detriment. While the twist in the book took its time to generate tension and disbelief in its villain, the film gives it away too soon and creates a strange ending in the process. So much of what made the book great lay in its darkness and sense of plot, and this film jumbles itself to try and keep us guessing to ill effect. The ending was probably the most disappointing aspect of the film because it makes little sense and loses all its tension so that it can feature an unneeded flashback. This in turn makes the ending nonsensical, and it's unclear just how Anna is handling the situation internally.
Maybe the ending's issues lies in the miscasting of this entire film, because everyone involved feels wrong. Justin Theroux is too severe in his role as Tom, just as Jack Nicholson was already too frightening to be a convincing father in "The Shining." Rebecca Ferguson, who I so loved in "Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation," plays the exact opposite of Ilsa: a pathetic underling of her husband's whims, who can't think for herself. Finally Haley Bennett was absolutely the worst choice to play a successful, wise gallery owner as she appears far too young. That and her character is simplified down to a sex addict with strange, awkward emotions that make her appear more crazy than interesting. No one seems to want to be in this movie except Emily Blunt, who is perfectly cast but isn't given enough on screen to really zing as Rachel. All in all this film is flawed beyond repair, and needed a director willing to take chances, and a script that actually thrilled.
The reason I am being so harsh isn't just because this film isn't "Gone Girl," but because it veers away from the book in all the wrong ways. It changes Rachel from a complete mess of a human being into a slightly flawed neurotic; it rushes through its plot, casts a Venezuelan actor to play an Indian psychiatrist, and tries to play up its red herrings to its own detriment. While the twist in the book took its time to generate tension and disbelief in its villain, the film gives it away too soon and creates a strange ending in the process. So much of what made the book great lay in its darkness and sense of plot, and this film jumbles itself to try and keep us guessing to ill effect. The ending was probably the most disappointing aspect of the film because it makes little sense and loses all its tension so that it can feature an unneeded flashback. This in turn makes the ending nonsensical, and it's unclear just how Anna is handling the situation internally.
Maybe the ending's issues lies in the miscasting of this entire film, because everyone involved feels wrong. Justin Theroux is too severe in his role as Tom, just as Jack Nicholson was already too frightening to be a convincing father in "The Shining." Rebecca Ferguson, who I so loved in "Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation," plays the exact opposite of Ilsa: a pathetic underling of her husband's whims, who can't think for herself. Finally Haley Bennett was absolutely the worst choice to play a successful, wise gallery owner as she appears far too young. That and her character is simplified down to a sex addict with strange, awkward emotions that make her appear more crazy than interesting. No one seems to want to be in this movie except Emily Blunt, who is perfectly cast but isn't given enough on screen to really zing as Rachel. All in all this film is flawed beyond repair, and needed a director willing to take chances, and a script that actually thrilled.
Mr. Right
(I) (2015)
Mr. Wrong
31 October 2016
It's difficult to know where to start with this disjointed, haphazard mess of a motion picture. Anna Kendrick, who god bless her, has become the epitome of a great indie performer, is a freak show of a human being in this strange, sordid love story. Playing opposite her is the equally talented Sam Rockwell, who is undercutting his trademark majesty with a role as a burbling, manic depressive hit man; who works under a moral code to only kill those who have hired him to kill. Somewhat out of the blue he decides that he fancies Kendrick, and she him, and they wander around New Orleans becoming best buddies. What starts as a cute, if imperfect, set-up quickly devolves into madness.
Eccentric leading ladies have peppered indie cinema to great effect in the past. Unfortunately writers haven't been trying to make their female characters multi-faceted, which sometimes means their only persona is that of a weirdo. Take Martha for instance. She starts off as a cute, impish oddball, and quickly devolves into an actual insane person. Perhaps this is an intentional move because she and Sam Rockwell fall for each other, and after she hears about his terrible secret it doesn't take very long for him to persuade her that they actually belong together. Seriously. A hit-man, who kills people based on a moral code, that is flimsy even under Dexter's guidance, is easily accepted by a random stranger, and even loved.
Besides the fact that they fall in love (despite the fact that each is acting unlike any known human being) the action is completely unrealistic. We're led to believe that any human can catch a blade, even if it's only inches from their face, based on simple, quick training. We are also led to believe that dainty little Anna Kendrick can take down baddies with little effort as long as she is in the right state of anger. Making her body a deadly weapon, and her character an out and out force of nature, is part of the plot so she becomes more empathetic to Mr. Right (Rockwell), and force her to fall for his calculated charm.
I understand that unusual love stories are sometimes the most interesting ("Natural Born Killers," "Bonnie and Clyde," "Harold and Maude.") but when you start the film as a cutesy romantic comedy and then try to keep that tone throughout, without expressly saying Kendrick is crazy, it doesn't feel authentic, or even enjoyable. You can argue that director Paco Cabezas did actually make Kendrick look crazy, but her friend still stands by her, she and her paramour never venture into violence, like any good criminal couple, and the film ends on an uplifting, cutesy note. Honestly, the unevenness of this film cannot be fixed just by pretending that its leads get to act however they want without some kind of consequence.
Eccentric leading ladies have peppered indie cinema to great effect in the past. Unfortunately writers haven't been trying to make their female characters multi-faceted, which sometimes means their only persona is that of a weirdo. Take Martha for instance. She starts off as a cute, impish oddball, and quickly devolves into an actual insane person. Perhaps this is an intentional move because she and Sam Rockwell fall for each other, and after she hears about his terrible secret it doesn't take very long for him to persuade her that they actually belong together. Seriously. A hit-man, who kills people based on a moral code, that is flimsy even under Dexter's guidance, is easily accepted by a random stranger, and even loved.
Besides the fact that they fall in love (despite the fact that each is acting unlike any known human being) the action is completely unrealistic. We're led to believe that any human can catch a blade, even if it's only inches from their face, based on simple, quick training. We are also led to believe that dainty little Anna Kendrick can take down baddies with little effort as long as she is in the right state of anger. Making her body a deadly weapon, and her character an out and out force of nature, is part of the plot so she becomes more empathetic to Mr. Right (Rockwell), and force her to fall for his calculated charm.
I understand that unusual love stories are sometimes the most interesting ("Natural Born Killers," "Bonnie and Clyde," "Harold and Maude.") but when you start the film as a cutesy romantic comedy and then try to keep that tone throughout, without expressly saying Kendrick is crazy, it doesn't feel authentic, or even enjoyable. You can argue that director Paco Cabezas did actually make Kendrick look crazy, but her friend still stands by her, she and her paramour never venture into violence, like any good criminal couple, and the film ends on an uplifting, cutesy note. Honestly, the unevenness of this film cannot be fixed just by pretending that its leads get to act however they want without some kind of consequence.
Holidays
(2016)
Christmas Has Been Canceled
31 October 2016
Using a celebratory holiday as the background for your horror film isn't a new technique. The most popular slasher film of all time is "Halloween," complete with trick or treaters and the teenaged screams of Jamie Lee Curtis. Many other lesser known, yet beloved, holiday features have been made, including "Santa's Slay," "New Year's Evil," and "ThanksKilling." In this vein comes a horror anthology film that celebrates the horror of the holiday season. The holidays in question include Father's Day, Mother's Day, St. Patrick's Day, Christmas, Halloween, New Year's Eve, Easter, and Valentine's Day.
Those who will enjoy this film must love the grotesque and the weird. None of these movies are especially scary, because that doesn't seem to be the aim for these newbie directors. Some of the vignettes are spooky, like "Father's Day," and most of them are downright weird, like "Easter," and "St. Patrick's Day," but if you're going in thinking that there will be an emphasis on jump scares and low budget thrills, you are mistaken. Honestly, I enjoyed the creepy, grim realities of these holidays, but these films don't take themselves too seriously and they revel in their campiness. If you love movies like "Black Christmas," and "Silent Night, Deadly Night," this is definitely going to make you feel nostalgic for the fun of seventies psychological faire and eighties slashers.
Though this is a film that I enjoyed, mostly for its unapologetic strangeness, it is not a good anthology. Some of these entries are so underwhelming, not only because they don't scare but because they don't know how to end. "Mother's Day," is an entry with an especially strong start a la "Rosemary's Baby," and then stumbles around until it ends predictably. "St. Patrick's Day," has, literally, the exact same themes, but ends in a comical (?) farce of Irish lore. Kevin Smith, the only large name attributed to this film, has an entry that stars his teenaged daughter, Harley Quinn Smith, as a cam worker bent on revenge on her pervy, rapist of a boss (played by Harley Morenstein of Epic Meal Time internet fame.)
Anthology horror films are rarely good, but they act positively as a space for filmmakers to take a small amount of time to try and create the next great horror fiction. Horror is so often drawn out and ruined via contrived plots and repeat sequels, and seeing a simple idea condensed down can be its own reward. While there' definitely some uncomfortably terrible entries in this anthology, there are some particularly potential gems as well.
Those who will enjoy this film must love the grotesque and the weird. None of these movies are especially scary, because that doesn't seem to be the aim for these newbie directors. Some of the vignettes are spooky, like "Father's Day," and most of them are downright weird, like "Easter," and "St. Patrick's Day," but if you're going in thinking that there will be an emphasis on jump scares and low budget thrills, you are mistaken. Honestly, I enjoyed the creepy, grim realities of these holidays, but these films don't take themselves too seriously and they revel in their campiness. If you love movies like "Black Christmas," and "Silent Night, Deadly Night," this is definitely going to make you feel nostalgic for the fun of seventies psychological faire and eighties slashers.
Though this is a film that I enjoyed, mostly for its unapologetic strangeness, it is not a good anthology. Some of these entries are so underwhelming, not only because they don't scare but because they don't know how to end. "Mother's Day," is an entry with an especially strong start a la "Rosemary's Baby," and then stumbles around until it ends predictably. "St. Patrick's Day," has, literally, the exact same themes, but ends in a comical (?) farce of Irish lore. Kevin Smith, the only large name attributed to this film, has an entry that stars his teenaged daughter, Harley Quinn Smith, as a cam worker bent on revenge on her pervy, rapist of a boss (played by Harley Morenstein of Epic Meal Time internet fame.)
Anthology horror films are rarely good, but they act positively as a space for filmmakers to take a small amount of time to try and create the next great horror fiction. Horror is so often drawn out and ruined via contrived plots and repeat sequels, and seeing a simple idea condensed down can be its own reward. While there' definitely some uncomfortably terrible entries in this anthology, there are some particularly potential gems as well.
Weiner
(2016)
If the Shoe Fits
11 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
When someone's reputation has devolved into being a walking punchline, it's very difficult to assuage the public they are trustworthy. That is the main focus of this documentary, which shows, in gritty detail, Anthony Weiner's failed 2013 bid for mayor of New York City. What really makes the film interesting is that it doesn't delve into a lot of the original scandal that found Weiner foisted from his senatorial position five years ago. While that is definitely a needed bit of background, the meat of the film relies on his need for the public to forgive, and hopefully forget. Weiner was once a respected and intelligible politician who moved for change, and it even looks like he could have come back from the scandal, until more details emerged.
As many of us know, that one unfortunate picture was not the end of the reign of scandal that follows Weiner, even today. During his campaign more pictures, previously unreleased, hit the media, and the pain and familiar breakage of two years prior resurfaced. In the center ring of this unfortunate circus is Weiner's poor wife, Huma Abedin. Huma is a stunning beauty with a radiant intellect, and is a woman with serious credentials at present helping Hilary Clinton run her presidential campaign. She is so poised and understanding during the campaign but quickly slides into defeat in front of the press, and the documentary filmmakers catch every subtle moment of her disdain and public embarrassment. Though Weiner seems strangely detached from the entire scandal, and is in serious denial about his chances in the race after it hits, it's Huma that truly engrosses the viewer.
What this film really gets across is that second chances are so rare that you better use them wisely. Weiner thought he could circumvent his old actions and gain back goodwill. Instead of being accountable Weiner goes on the defensive, using the same vitriol that made him famous on the floor of Congress to yell at reporters and the public alike. He was already far down the rabbit hole and then he took a Bobcat and dug down thirty more feet.
The film ends with a reluctantly positive vibe, showing Weiner in interviews, and on political programs, trying to adjust to the life that he is handed with as much grace as he can muster. In reality his life isn't on the upturn. His wife has separated from him, and just last week it was reported that he was sexting a fifteen year old, and will be criminally investigated. A story of redemption is always good, but that's really not what this film is about. This is a story of a man who can't help himself, even when the going is finally good. It began as a story of goodwill, and ended in another in a long line of films about how people never change.
As many of us know, that one unfortunate picture was not the end of the reign of scandal that follows Weiner, even today. During his campaign more pictures, previously unreleased, hit the media, and the pain and familiar breakage of two years prior resurfaced. In the center ring of this unfortunate circus is Weiner's poor wife, Huma Abedin. Huma is a stunning beauty with a radiant intellect, and is a woman with serious credentials at present helping Hilary Clinton run her presidential campaign. She is so poised and understanding during the campaign but quickly slides into defeat in front of the press, and the documentary filmmakers catch every subtle moment of her disdain and public embarrassment. Though Weiner seems strangely detached from the entire scandal, and is in serious denial about his chances in the race after it hits, it's Huma that truly engrosses the viewer.
What this film really gets across is that second chances are so rare that you better use them wisely. Weiner thought he could circumvent his old actions and gain back goodwill. Instead of being accountable Weiner goes on the defensive, using the same vitriol that made him famous on the floor of Congress to yell at reporters and the public alike. He was already far down the rabbit hole and then he took a Bobcat and dug down thirty more feet.
The film ends with a reluctantly positive vibe, showing Weiner in interviews, and on political programs, trying to adjust to the life that he is handed with as much grace as he can muster. In reality his life isn't on the upturn. His wife has separated from him, and just last week it was reported that he was sexting a fifteen year old, and will be criminally investigated. A story of redemption is always good, but that's really not what this film is about. This is a story of a man who can't help himself, even when the going is finally good. It began as a story of goodwill, and ended in another in a long line of films about how people never change.
The Gallows
(2015)
Gallows Humored
11 October 2016
Found footage horror films have been old hat for years. "Blair Witch," though problematic, is definitely the best of the genre to emerge, with the original "Paranormal Activity" in a close second. Though there have been more copycats than original films produced the genre persists, and has even spawned two "Haunted House," movies, which is in itself a monstrous side effect of this epidemic. Every year another article emerges saying that either the genre is over-done and lazy, or there are new innovations. "The Gallows" falls into the former.
The premise is simply ridiculous. A high school theater production is putting on the same play they did twenty some years ago, even though that original production saw the lead die on stage. That would just never happen, period. From that hackneyed premise a narrative of retribution and revenge emerges, but it isn't doled out to anyone who actually deserves it. Instead four nearly random high school kids get the brunt of a ghost's revenge, and they don't have anything to do with the original issues of twenty years ago. Oh, the film thinks it explains itself with a random, nonsensical twist ending, but in actuality there's little to bond the story other than a red filter and hyena like screams from off-screen.
Besides the idiotic plot, these characters are so painfully written that you may need a sedative to quell the rising anger you will feel at the back of your throat. Their two dimensional personas are bad by horror movie standards, which have been especially low in this era of found footage micro-budgeted laze fests. Everything about this film is intolerable and contrived. Do you really think we don't know what you're doing when you have someone follow their friends around with a hand-held camera? No one films themselves opening doors, or pulling ropes, even when no one else is on screen.
The only reason I sat through this underwhelming student film is because others like it have emerged and been lauded. "Unfriended," "REC," and the Paranormal Activity films have all been studio strongholds for the past three years, with some serious fan service to boot. This is strange to me, because there is nothing enjoyable about these films. The jump scares might make you tense, and the look and feel are popcorn for your brain, but doesn't anyone miss the old stuff? Does anyone miss the novelty, the ingenuity, and weirdness of really diverse horror? Horror used to be the one avenue to explore things like trauma, obsession, and evocative terror in a creative way. A genre that once housed "The Exorcist," and "Dawn of the Dead," should not have to subsume to something of this nature. Not every horror film must be a masterpiece, but originally horror films did more shock and awe, because they had to. Directors like Wes Craven, Mario Bava, and Joe Dante made films for little money, and replaced studio effects with weird makeup, odd characters, and grisly action. There is nothing salvageable about this particular nonsensical trash, so find something better to get you in the Halloween spirit.
The premise is simply ridiculous. A high school theater production is putting on the same play they did twenty some years ago, even though that original production saw the lead die on stage. That would just never happen, period. From that hackneyed premise a narrative of retribution and revenge emerges, but it isn't doled out to anyone who actually deserves it. Instead four nearly random high school kids get the brunt of a ghost's revenge, and they don't have anything to do with the original issues of twenty years ago. Oh, the film thinks it explains itself with a random, nonsensical twist ending, but in actuality there's little to bond the story other than a red filter and hyena like screams from off-screen.
Besides the idiotic plot, these characters are so painfully written that you may need a sedative to quell the rising anger you will feel at the back of your throat. Their two dimensional personas are bad by horror movie standards, which have been especially low in this era of found footage micro-budgeted laze fests. Everything about this film is intolerable and contrived. Do you really think we don't know what you're doing when you have someone follow their friends around with a hand-held camera? No one films themselves opening doors, or pulling ropes, even when no one else is on screen.
The only reason I sat through this underwhelming student film is because others like it have emerged and been lauded. "Unfriended," "REC," and the Paranormal Activity films have all been studio strongholds for the past three years, with some serious fan service to boot. This is strange to me, because there is nothing enjoyable about these films. The jump scares might make you tense, and the look and feel are popcorn for your brain, but doesn't anyone miss the old stuff? Does anyone miss the novelty, the ingenuity, and weirdness of really diverse horror? Horror used to be the one avenue to explore things like trauma, obsession, and evocative terror in a creative way. A genre that once housed "The Exorcist," and "Dawn of the Dead," should not have to subsume to something of this nature. Not every horror film must be a masterpiece, but originally horror films did more shock and awe, because they had to. Directors like Wes Craven, Mario Bava, and Joe Dante made films for little money, and replaced studio effects with weird makeup, odd characters, and grisly action. There is nothing salvageable about this particular nonsensical trash, so find something better to get you in the Halloween spirit.
Straight Outta Compton
(2015)
Rap as Art
27 September 2016
Everyone knows that this is the film that deserved better. The lack of diversity seen in the nominations of the past year makes little sense when there's a film like "Straight Outta Compton" out in the stratosphere. Thanks to this film an entire new generation of kids will know about the forbearers of gangsta rap. NWA revolutionized the genre, stood up to police brutality, censorship, and a predominantly classist society set to denigrate people and keep them in their place. Telling the story of the founding members of N.W.A. (Niggaz Wit Attitude), this film covers the group's rise to fame, and their eventual dissolution in the face of animosity and greed.
"Straight Outta Compton" was only nominated for Best Original Screenplay which is ridiculous. It could have taken "Brooklyn" or "The Martian's" place for Best Picture, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. or Jason Mitchell could have easily been nominated for Best Supporting Actor in the place of Sylvestor Stallone. I think it's important to note that when people choose which actors and properties get nominated, they aren't looking to what stories are most important, but who deserves what more. The Academy is made up predominantly of white men. This body decided that a film that tells a story unseen before, and hasn't been given the needed credence, deserved a nomination for telling its story, but not the actual story. Though this was an audience favorite, and is as polished and important as any bio-pic, it apparently didn't deserve the same respect as a film about an Irish immigrant who defecates in a bucket. Besides being an important story, this film covers a lot of history echoed in today's news. For one thing police brutality is a major issue in today's media, though it has been an occurrence since our country's formation. The media is only now taking note of the multiple deaths of African Americans and other minorities by police, as well as their patent racism in complying with stop and frisk and other discriminatory police procedurals. The film depicts the group as members of the Compton community, and they are often harassed and arrested by the LAPD. Their music fights the system and calls for action by society at large, but they don't want to incite violence or rioting. The Rodney King riots work as a backdrop for the group's dissension from one another, as well as a retread of current events, including the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner.
The film has been accused of revisionist history which highlights the best of the group, but doesn't cover Arabian Prince's contribution to the group's start, or the domestic abuse by Dr. Dre on the women in his life, or the story of rap group J.J. Fad. Dr. Dre comes out of the film looking squeaky clean, which is unsettling, but for the most part it's a really spot on story. Most of the film deals with Ice Cube and Eazy-E's beef, their manager taking advantage of the situation to make a lot of money, and Eazy-E's illness and eventual death. This is definitely a film worth seeing, and one that deserved better than it got.
"Straight Outta Compton" was only nominated for Best Original Screenplay which is ridiculous. It could have taken "Brooklyn" or "The Martian's" place for Best Picture, and O'Shea Jackson Jr. or Jason Mitchell could have easily been nominated for Best Supporting Actor in the place of Sylvestor Stallone. I think it's important to note that when people choose which actors and properties get nominated, they aren't looking to what stories are most important, but who deserves what more. The Academy is made up predominantly of white men. This body decided that a film that tells a story unseen before, and hasn't been given the needed credence, deserved a nomination for telling its story, but not the actual story. Though this was an audience favorite, and is as polished and important as any bio-pic, it apparently didn't deserve the same respect as a film about an Irish immigrant who defecates in a bucket. Besides being an important story, this film covers a lot of history echoed in today's news. For one thing police brutality is a major issue in today's media, though it has been an occurrence since our country's formation. The media is only now taking note of the multiple deaths of African Americans and other minorities by police, as well as their patent racism in complying with stop and frisk and other discriminatory police procedurals. The film depicts the group as members of the Compton community, and they are often harassed and arrested by the LAPD. Their music fights the system and calls for action by society at large, but they don't want to incite violence or rioting. The Rodney King riots work as a backdrop for the group's dissension from one another, as well as a retread of current events, including the deaths of Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Eric Garner.
The film has been accused of revisionist history which highlights the best of the group, but doesn't cover Arabian Prince's contribution to the group's start, or the domestic abuse by Dr. Dre on the women in his life, or the story of rap group J.J. Fad. Dr. Dre comes out of the film looking squeaky clean, which is unsettling, but for the most part it's a really spot on story. Most of the film deals with Ice Cube and Eazy-E's beef, their manager taking advantage of the situation to make a lot of money, and Eazy-E's illness and eventual death. This is definitely a film worth seeing, and one that deserved better than it got.
Digging for Fire
(2015)
Wish They Had Dug Up the Bones of a Better Movie
27 September 2016
Joe Swanberg is an actor who has become a seminal figure in the mumblecore movement of the past ten years. With films like "Happy Christmas" and "Drinking Buddies," he has a distinct voice among the indie set. His films often start with a simple outline for the plot, with some tragic thirtysomething characters, and then the dialogue is mostly improvised by the actors themselves. He often operates with a cast that he has worked before, such as Jake Johnson, Anna Kendrick, and Melanie Lynskey.
The film's plot is actually based on events in Jake Johnson's own life. The film follows a married couple, played by Johnson and Rosemarie DeWitt, who are having a hard time coexisting after the arrival of their son Jude. The wife, Lee, is a yoga teacher and one of her clients is letting the family stay at her vacation home for two weeks. The husband, Tim, digs around the property and finds a bone and an old gun. When Lee leaves to spend time with her family Tim invites a group of friends over, and though Lee has stated that he shouldn't dig anymore, he and his friends do anyway, and find quite a bit of evidence. The rest of the film sees both Tim and Lee try to find themselves in the company of others, as they attempt to piece together what they want from life.
I mean, that's the interpretation that I came up with in watching this film. Swanberg eschews traditional storytelling and rhythm in order to delve into the inner psyche of the subjects covered in his films. To do this he often focuses between two and four characters. In this film there are two central characters, but there's also a large ensemble cast who do nothing but throw off noise. Chris Messina shows up for a good ten seconds of screen time, and Anna Kendrick does her cameo in stride, but they don't add anything to the story besides showing that Tim isn't a hermit. Brie Larson probably has the largest role as a friend of a friend who helps Tim flirt with the idea of infidelity as she becomes his confidant. Sam Rockwell is an explosive if unneeded presence, as a friend who becomes jealous of the Tim and Brie's relationship.
Though there are some stark moments among the pretentious drivel, this is the worst example of the mumblecore movement I've seen yet. It reinforces the criticisms of most, as it's unfocused, monotonous, and slow. Johnson's usual charm is masked by a performance that weaves in between interesting and wayward. DeWitt isn't much better as the controlling and yet unfocused wife. If there had been a little more plot, a little more explanation, this would have been a much more interesting and deep film.
The film's plot is actually based on events in Jake Johnson's own life. The film follows a married couple, played by Johnson and Rosemarie DeWitt, who are having a hard time coexisting after the arrival of their son Jude. The wife, Lee, is a yoga teacher and one of her clients is letting the family stay at her vacation home for two weeks. The husband, Tim, digs around the property and finds a bone and an old gun. When Lee leaves to spend time with her family Tim invites a group of friends over, and though Lee has stated that he shouldn't dig anymore, he and his friends do anyway, and find quite a bit of evidence. The rest of the film sees both Tim and Lee try to find themselves in the company of others, as they attempt to piece together what they want from life.
I mean, that's the interpretation that I came up with in watching this film. Swanberg eschews traditional storytelling and rhythm in order to delve into the inner psyche of the subjects covered in his films. To do this he often focuses between two and four characters. In this film there are two central characters, but there's also a large ensemble cast who do nothing but throw off noise. Chris Messina shows up for a good ten seconds of screen time, and Anna Kendrick does her cameo in stride, but they don't add anything to the story besides showing that Tim isn't a hermit. Brie Larson probably has the largest role as a friend of a friend who helps Tim flirt with the idea of infidelity as she becomes his confidant. Sam Rockwell is an explosive if unneeded presence, as a friend who becomes jealous of the Tim and Brie's relationship.
Though there are some stark moments among the pretentious drivel, this is the worst example of the mumblecore movement I've seen yet. It reinforces the criticisms of most, as it's unfocused, monotonous, and slow. Johnson's usual charm is masked by a performance that weaves in between interesting and wayward. DeWitt isn't much better as the controlling and yet unfocused wife. If there had been a little more plot, a little more explanation, this would have been a much more interesting and deep film.
X-Men: Apocalypse
(2016)
Another in a Long Line
27 September 2016
This is the third film in the "First Class" series, which finds us at a crossroads storytelling wise. While the previous X-Men film, "Days of Future Past," cared more about wiping the slate clean and starting anew, this film tries to tie up loose ends and end on a solid note. There are no planned X-Men films in the seeable future so this is the last we will see of the Xavier school for some time. We do have a Wolverine film in the works, but honestly we're all too burned out to care.
The film is arguably solid on story, effects, character work, and action, though it's trying to be many films at once. First relating to old characters, the film soon veers into dull origin stories, and then finally we deal in the main villain. Our foe is Apocalypse, who was featured in the comics as the first mutant in existence, and had once survived for thousands of years by accruing other mutants' powers and transferring to a new body when his own crumbled. The character has been in existence at Marvel since the eighties, and here is played by Oscar Isaac. While there are some great aspects to the character and his origins his view of the world is very black and white, which means this is a story of good and evil, with no grey in between. This hasn't been a staple in superhero films since the grit of Nolan's Batman films, and for good reason. Seeing the origins of Cyclops, Storm, Nightcrawler, and Jean Grey was a welcome addition to the already patchwork origin saga of the past two films, but made it all feel lopsided and already trod.
Because the original timeline is completely messed up there are a lot of questions for the next film including: Did Apocalypse create the hatred for mutants from humans seen in the original trilogy, and will this show up in the new timeline? Will Magneto's hatred for humans and his want for mutants to take over the world stay in effect? How did Wolverine get captured by Stryker after "Days of Future Past"? Where did Olivia Munn's Psylocke go at the end of the battle? Also, now that The Phoenix has been awakened, are we going to get a Dark Phoenix storyline and film? Currently this film is low rated and has a feeble box office compared to its predecessor. Casual filmgoers have not warmed to the obvious lip service to nostalgia and the Marvel fandom. Though the effects are tremendous and the emotional weight of certain characters' paths makes for an enjoyable watch, it doesn't have the oomph factor of the second film, or the ability to veer away from character set-ups and origin stories. If the film really wanted to work, it would have better focused on the heroes it had and casually introduced others. The film almost completely ignores some characters while overtly focusing on others who don't warrant the time. Overall this is an enjoyable if troubling addition to the X-Men franchise.
The film is arguably solid on story, effects, character work, and action, though it's trying to be many films at once. First relating to old characters, the film soon veers into dull origin stories, and then finally we deal in the main villain. Our foe is Apocalypse, who was featured in the comics as the first mutant in existence, and had once survived for thousands of years by accruing other mutants' powers and transferring to a new body when his own crumbled. The character has been in existence at Marvel since the eighties, and here is played by Oscar Isaac. While there are some great aspects to the character and his origins his view of the world is very black and white, which means this is a story of good and evil, with no grey in between. This hasn't been a staple in superhero films since the grit of Nolan's Batman films, and for good reason. Seeing the origins of Cyclops, Storm, Nightcrawler, and Jean Grey was a welcome addition to the already patchwork origin saga of the past two films, but made it all feel lopsided and already trod.
Because the original timeline is completely messed up there are a lot of questions for the next film including: Did Apocalypse create the hatred for mutants from humans seen in the original trilogy, and will this show up in the new timeline? Will Magneto's hatred for humans and his want for mutants to take over the world stay in effect? How did Wolverine get captured by Stryker after "Days of Future Past"? Where did Olivia Munn's Psylocke go at the end of the battle? Also, now that The Phoenix has been awakened, are we going to get a Dark Phoenix storyline and film? Currently this film is low rated and has a feeble box office compared to its predecessor. Casual filmgoers have not warmed to the obvious lip service to nostalgia and the Marvel fandom. Though the effects are tremendous and the emotional weight of certain characters' paths makes for an enjoyable watch, it doesn't have the oomph factor of the second film, or the ability to veer away from character set-ups and origin stories. If the film really wanted to work, it would have better focused on the heroes it had and casually introduced others. The film almost completely ignores some characters while overtly focusing on others who don't warrant the time. Overall this is an enjoyable if troubling addition to the X-Men franchise.
Dark Places
(2015)
Dark as Can Be
27 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Everyone loves "Gone Girl," as they obviously should. Whether it's the bestselling novel, or the film adaptation, everyone is clamoring to praise Gillian Flynn's masterstroke. Before Flynn wrote and published "Gone Girl," she churned out two other novels of similar dark virtue. The first was "Sharp Objects," and the second was this film's inspiration, "Dark Places." "Gone Girl" came out a meager one year before this film, and bankrupted its goodwill by being a powerhouse spectacle for stars Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck. Director Gilles Paquet-Brenner always meant for this to be a small independent film, but now it will always be unfairly juxtaposed with its counterpart, which seems unfair given that the original book was quite entertaining and dark. As there wasn't a wide release for this film it has languished, and remains an afterthought in the Gillian Flynn legacy. Is the film really that bad? The answer is yes and no.
The film pairs nicely with the novel it's based on. Everything is copied, including the uses of flashback, the bizarre Kill Club, and the episode between Libby (Theron) and her father, Runner (Bridgers). The book was amazing because it slowly unearthed the true events of the night in question, and it wasn't a simplistic mystery that anyone at home could figure out. The characters themselves emerged on the page, and their motives shifted throughout the narrative, creating great suspense and intrigue for anyone reading. This film did not harness the book's original energy, and instead tried to be as upsetting as possible. It did not succeed.
The reason it didn't work as a thriller is because it didn't really do justice to the characters. Rosamund Pike was Amy, through and through, including all the manipulation, the cold veneer of hostility, and the ruthless predation. Charlize Theron was far too polished to be Libby Day, a little girl in a grown woman's body, scared of the outside world, and unable to do anything for herself except take others' sympathy for their cold hard cash. The pain and alienation of her childhood is thwarted by the calm, detached exterior that Theron throws on in lieu of true emotional depth. Much of the creepy elements of the book are thrown aside in order to exact the plot. Ben Day (Sheridan, Stoll) is nothing like the book. He is supposed to be this rebellious stooge, but in this film he comes off as a voice of reason who is manipulated by his rich, pregnant girlfriend, Diondra (Moretz, Roth).
Though I wanted to love this film, because it tries to do the book justice, it just wasn't weird or gross enough for me. Though it's about murdering a woman and her children, it felt mundane and contrived. Maybe "Sharp Objects," could be done well, but if it's taken on in the same approach it will be just as ignored as this film.
The film pairs nicely with the novel it's based on. Everything is copied, including the uses of flashback, the bizarre Kill Club, and the episode between Libby (Theron) and her father, Runner (Bridgers). The book was amazing because it slowly unearthed the true events of the night in question, and it wasn't a simplistic mystery that anyone at home could figure out. The characters themselves emerged on the page, and their motives shifted throughout the narrative, creating great suspense and intrigue for anyone reading. This film did not harness the book's original energy, and instead tried to be as upsetting as possible. It did not succeed.
The reason it didn't work as a thriller is because it didn't really do justice to the characters. Rosamund Pike was Amy, through and through, including all the manipulation, the cold veneer of hostility, and the ruthless predation. Charlize Theron was far too polished to be Libby Day, a little girl in a grown woman's body, scared of the outside world, and unable to do anything for herself except take others' sympathy for their cold hard cash. The pain and alienation of her childhood is thwarted by the calm, detached exterior that Theron throws on in lieu of true emotional depth. Much of the creepy elements of the book are thrown aside in order to exact the plot. Ben Day (Sheridan, Stoll) is nothing like the book. He is supposed to be this rebellious stooge, but in this film he comes off as a voice of reason who is manipulated by his rich, pregnant girlfriend, Diondra (Moretz, Roth).
Though I wanted to love this film, because it tries to do the book justice, it just wasn't weird or gross enough for me. Though it's about murdering a woman and her children, it felt mundane and contrived. Maybe "Sharp Objects," could be done well, but if it's taken on in the same approach it will be just as ignored as this film.
The Fundamentals of Caring
(2016)
Easy to Care About
27 September 2016
Novels about teenagers disabled or dying have become hugely popular lately. Looking at books like "The Fault in Our Stars," "The Beginning of Everything," and "Wonder," it's clear that the way to engage with teenaged readers is to show differently abled people in a positive light. In that same vein comes this Netflix film, based on the book "The Revised Fundamentals of Caring," by Jonathan Evison.
The story follows caregiver Ben (Rudd) as he recovers from a personal tragedy that has left him unable to write or understand his pending divorce. He meets disabled teen Trevor (Roberts), a Welsh teenager with a morbid sense of humor and a sailor's mouth, and they each help one another cope with their issues. Trevor is fascinated with world oddities, and Ben proposes a road trip to see them all, and along the way they run into Dot (Gomez), a lovable hitchhiker. As dramedies go, this is a good one, fusing together the issues of living with muscular dystrophy and being a teenager.
Craig Roberts has been one to watch since his great turn in Richard Ayoade's "Submarine," and currently he is both acting and directing in a lot of great films and British television. He and Gomez have sparkling chemistry on screen, and it's a pity that she doesn't act more. Between this and "Spring Breakers," Gomez has shown serious artistic growth in her acting choices in the past five years, which is truly amazing. Rudd is reserved yet charming, in the way that only Paul Rudd can pull off. He and Roberts are great together, playing off of each other's insecurities and tragic backstories.
The weakest part of the plot is probably Ben's issues with his dead child. Not to belittle the grief and pain of losing a child, but it's not needed in this film. Ben could have had any other form of pain in his past and it would have been so much better. It can be argued that having that loss of a child creates a greater bond between Ben and Trevor, but really it's just added to make Ben seem more poignant and heartbreaking as a character. The child isn't even really mentioned throughout, and the flashback to his death is pointless and unnerving in a lazy way.
Overall I find this to be a sweet and funny film, with themes that are important for teens and adults alike, but there's nothing new to the telling of the story. It is great to see a character with a disability handled in such a thoughtful way, but again, having that addition to the story doesn't mean it's doing anything altogether new or revolutionary.
The story follows caregiver Ben (Rudd) as he recovers from a personal tragedy that has left him unable to write or understand his pending divorce. He meets disabled teen Trevor (Roberts), a Welsh teenager with a morbid sense of humor and a sailor's mouth, and they each help one another cope with their issues. Trevor is fascinated with world oddities, and Ben proposes a road trip to see them all, and along the way they run into Dot (Gomez), a lovable hitchhiker. As dramedies go, this is a good one, fusing together the issues of living with muscular dystrophy and being a teenager.
Craig Roberts has been one to watch since his great turn in Richard Ayoade's "Submarine," and currently he is both acting and directing in a lot of great films and British television. He and Gomez have sparkling chemistry on screen, and it's a pity that she doesn't act more. Between this and "Spring Breakers," Gomez has shown serious artistic growth in her acting choices in the past five years, which is truly amazing. Rudd is reserved yet charming, in the way that only Paul Rudd can pull off. He and Roberts are great together, playing off of each other's insecurities and tragic backstories.
The weakest part of the plot is probably Ben's issues with his dead child. Not to belittle the grief and pain of losing a child, but it's not needed in this film. Ben could have had any other form of pain in his past and it would have been so much better. It can be argued that having that loss of a child creates a greater bond between Ben and Trevor, but really it's just added to make Ben seem more poignant and heartbreaking as a character. The child isn't even really mentioned throughout, and the flashback to his death is pointless and unnerving in a lazy way.
Overall I find this to be a sweet and funny film, with themes that are important for teens and adults alike, but there's nothing new to the telling of the story. It is great to see a character with a disability handled in such a thoughtful way, but again, having that addition to the story doesn't mean it's doing anything altogether new or revolutionary.
Sleeping with Other People
(2015)
Willing to Settle Down
27 September 2016
The subject of sex addiction is a new one, at least in indie filmmaking, and it was terribly explored in the 2012 film "Thanks for Sharing." With a much funnier cast assembled, and a solid screenplay to boot, the romantic coupling of Jason Suidekis and Alison Brie is one of the best in recent years. Much of the film's success is owed to writer and director Leslye Headland, who also helmed the 2012 comedy "Bachelorette." The film is produced by Will Ferrell and Adam McKay, who have been taking more chances on obscure indie comedies. Though this isn't the best rom-com of last year it has flawless chemistry between its leads and includes bawdy humor that impresses and intrigues.
The film starts in much the same way as "When Harry Met Sally," with Lainey (Brie) meeting Jake (Sudeikis) in a dorm hallway, where Lainey is pounding on someone's door. It turns out that she is trying to find her TA (Scott) to lose her virginity to. Jake and Lainey end up having one night stand, and don't see each other until they meet at a Love Addicts group in New York. Not wanting to risk any new relationships on having a sexual fling, they become platonic friends who give each other advice on their dating lives. Lainey apparently did meet up with that TA, and he is now a married man with a baby on the way. Jake is newly obsessed with his current boss, played by Amanda Peet. The problems of the characters aren't anything new, but their chemistry and constant support of one another make the film both introspective and endearingly funny.
Like in "Thanks for Sharing," sex addiction doesn't actually get explored as well as it could. In that film we follow three different couples all grappling with sex addiction, and each story isn't given enough time to be explored, which makes the film meandering and needless. This film kind of peters out on its main theme (though it's about love addiction not sex addiction) immediately, in order to explore the characters and really focus on their relationship rather than making this a social issue film. Love addiction doesn't seem like it makes sense as the film's major theme, because Jake doesn't seem to love anyone but himself, and Lainey cheats on her only love interest.
The film stresses that these two people have not had any healthy relationships since their one night stand thirteen years prior. While it's admirable to include love, or sex addiction, as your theme, it's not needed here. These two people are complex and funny without the need for adding contemporary themes and complicating the plot.
The film starts in much the same way as "When Harry Met Sally," with Lainey (Brie) meeting Jake (Sudeikis) in a dorm hallway, where Lainey is pounding on someone's door. It turns out that she is trying to find her TA (Scott) to lose her virginity to. Jake and Lainey end up having one night stand, and don't see each other until they meet at a Love Addicts group in New York. Not wanting to risk any new relationships on having a sexual fling, they become platonic friends who give each other advice on their dating lives. Lainey apparently did meet up with that TA, and he is now a married man with a baby on the way. Jake is newly obsessed with his current boss, played by Amanda Peet. The problems of the characters aren't anything new, but their chemistry and constant support of one another make the film both introspective and endearingly funny.
Like in "Thanks for Sharing," sex addiction doesn't actually get explored as well as it could. In that film we follow three different couples all grappling with sex addiction, and each story isn't given enough time to be explored, which makes the film meandering and needless. This film kind of peters out on its main theme (though it's about love addiction not sex addiction) immediately, in order to explore the characters and really focus on their relationship rather than making this a social issue film. Love addiction doesn't seem like it makes sense as the film's major theme, because Jake doesn't seem to love anyone but himself, and Lainey cheats on her only love interest.
The film stresses that these two people have not had any healthy relationships since their one night stand thirteen years prior. While it's admirable to include love, or sex addiction, as your theme, it's not needed here. These two people are complex and funny without the need for adding contemporary themes and complicating the plot.
The Hateful Eight
(2015)
Hateful, but not Awful
27 September 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Writing a review of any Tarantino work usually causes me to exhale loudly in anticipation, knowing I will have to try and untangle the controversy in order to form a coherent opinion of the film. Tarantino uses controversy as his currency, and many of his films are reviled for it. Tarantino doesn't shy away from race, gender, history, or black comedy, and in this newest Western there's a lot to talk about, a lot to flinch at, and much that delights the ears and eyes. Without further ado, let's pick apart "The Hateful Eight," the eighth film by Quentin Tarantino.
The Weinsteins made Tarantino a critical darling with their backing of "Reservoir Dogs," and "Pulp Fiction," and have been behind the wunderkind ever since. The Oscar glory has faded some since the nineties, but "The Hateful Eight" garnered an impressive three nominations and subsequent win for Ennio Morricone's score. Morricone is one of the least observed masters in the industry, especially when looking at John Williams, who was especially honored at the ceremony this year. His win was especially deserved for this film, who's score was beyond memorable, and lent true depth to the candidly amazing visuals of the winterized mountain terrain. Jennifer Jason Leigh was up for Best Supporting Actress, and I had previously stated that I think she should have won over Alicia Vikander, which is a position I still maintain. I might be a bit biased because I believe that Leigh is one of the greatest actresses of this generation and doesn't get the credit she deserves, but there's no arguing on the point that she had an out and out outstanding performance as Daisy Domergue. As always the cast is an ensemble, which always creates due tension in the plot. The story is set in a post-Civil War nineteenth century where the purveyors of the war are all huddled in an inn against an oncoming blizzard. Adding the tension of Daisy as captive, and a possible accomplice among the ranks of the strangers at the inn, it's clear that something insidious is afoot. The controversies of the film include: abject violence, most of it directed at Daisy, the subject of slavery and racism, brought to attention by Samuel L. Jackson's former war hero rattled by a former Confederate general and soldier at the inn, and the obvious language and visuals. The violence against Daisy is calamitous, but adds something quite complex to the plot. Daisy is the main villain of the film, because she is a murderer and gang accomplice, so she is treated as such by her keeper, Ruth (Russell). If she were played by a man this would be in keeping with the time and place of the story, and here it adds authenticity to the narrative.
The film itself is great, if a little long winded. The entire exchange between Major Warren (Jackson) and General Smithers (Dern) was so strange and long that it took a lot away from the plot, yet still it was needed in order to establish important themes later in the story. The use of cinematography, costuming, music, and Tarantino's patented mis-en-scene created such a carnal experience on screen that it could be nothing but brilliant. Yet another great addition to the Tarantino canon, and a truly thought provoking watch.
The Weinsteins made Tarantino a critical darling with their backing of "Reservoir Dogs," and "Pulp Fiction," and have been behind the wunderkind ever since. The Oscar glory has faded some since the nineties, but "The Hateful Eight" garnered an impressive three nominations and subsequent win for Ennio Morricone's score. Morricone is one of the least observed masters in the industry, especially when looking at John Williams, who was especially honored at the ceremony this year. His win was especially deserved for this film, who's score was beyond memorable, and lent true depth to the candidly amazing visuals of the winterized mountain terrain. Jennifer Jason Leigh was up for Best Supporting Actress, and I had previously stated that I think she should have won over Alicia Vikander, which is a position I still maintain. I might be a bit biased because I believe that Leigh is one of the greatest actresses of this generation and doesn't get the credit she deserves, but there's no arguing on the point that she had an out and out outstanding performance as Daisy Domergue. As always the cast is an ensemble, which always creates due tension in the plot. The story is set in a post-Civil War nineteenth century where the purveyors of the war are all huddled in an inn against an oncoming blizzard. Adding the tension of Daisy as captive, and a possible accomplice among the ranks of the strangers at the inn, it's clear that something insidious is afoot. The controversies of the film include: abject violence, most of it directed at Daisy, the subject of slavery and racism, brought to attention by Samuel L. Jackson's former war hero rattled by a former Confederate general and soldier at the inn, and the obvious language and visuals. The violence against Daisy is calamitous, but adds something quite complex to the plot. Daisy is the main villain of the film, because she is a murderer and gang accomplice, so she is treated as such by her keeper, Ruth (Russell). If she were played by a man this would be in keeping with the time and place of the story, and here it adds authenticity to the narrative.
The film itself is great, if a little long winded. The entire exchange between Major Warren (Jackson) and General Smithers (Dern) was so strange and long that it took a lot away from the plot, yet still it was needed in order to establish important themes later in the story. The use of cinematography, costuming, music, and Tarantino's patented mis-en-scene created such a carnal experience on screen that it could be nothing but brilliant. Yet another great addition to the Tarantino canon, and a truly thought provoking watch.
Joy
(I) (2015)
The Name of the Movie, and the Feeling of Watching It
27 September 2016
The newest venture between Jennifer Lawrence, David O. Russell, Bradley Cooper, and Robert De Niro hasn't been given the same love as past films such as "Silver Lining Playbook," and "American Hustle." The story is partially based on the real life entrepreneur Joy Mangano, but many of the characters are changed or invented, and the struggles of Mangano are sometimes supplemented by other women's struggles and life stories. While the film doesn't have the same polished, straight forward feel of its predecessor, or the desperate neediness of "Silver Linings", it balances its elements well and is a strange yet satisfying watch.
While past collaborations between this dream team have yielded multiple acting and creative nominations, Lawrence received the sole nomination in her turn as Mangano. It's clear that the film deserved that one, but none other. Up against such heavyweights as "Spotlight," and "The Revenant," "Joy" didn't have much of a chance of Best Director, Screenplay, or Cinematography. Maybe Costuming should have come into it, but the nominations looked pretty solid, and with "Mad Max's" unprecedented win, it's easy to see why "Joy" didn't get much love. Lawrence's performance was really what was holding the film together, but otherwise there wasn't anything truly extraordinary about this film, and it definitely didn't deserve kudos. Brie Larson rightly won for "Room," but if Lawrence had taken home the gold I wouldn't have been all that shocked. For the first part of the film everything feels a bit disjointed and confused. Mangano's family is a mishmash of her divorced parents (De Niro and Madsen), who can't seem to get along, her children, her Venezuelan husband (Ramirez) who doesn't work enough and lives in her basement, and her grandmother (Ladd), who also narrates. Though all these characters make a great impression and add eccentricity and flavor to a straight forward success story, they clog up the screen at times with their neuroses and flabbergasting weirdness. If some of these characters had been toned down, other more interesting ones could have been better explored. Joy and her father have this complicated relationship, which seems to be tense at all times, further made rigid by Joy's half-sister Peggy (Rohm). This relationship is never truly explored, past seeing Mr. Mangano give a terrible speech at Joy's wedding. Later in the film he adds to her angst by moving in with her, and becomes her biggest critic, though again it's unclear why. If that had been explored well it would have added something truly real and interesting to a story that feels dated.
When the film deals straight on with Joy's story of adversity and bankruptcy in the face of her ingenuity and chutzpah, it gains its footing. The last half is inspirational, interesting, and uplifting. Mangano really went above and beyond what any person would do and saved herself and her family single-handedly. Movies like this, that show women succeeding in a world that only wants to break them down into bite sized pieces, need to be made. They don't garner as much praise, or make all the money at the box office, but they inspire the next generation of female filmmakers, and people in general.
While past collaborations between this dream team have yielded multiple acting and creative nominations, Lawrence received the sole nomination in her turn as Mangano. It's clear that the film deserved that one, but none other. Up against such heavyweights as "Spotlight," and "The Revenant," "Joy" didn't have much of a chance of Best Director, Screenplay, or Cinematography. Maybe Costuming should have come into it, but the nominations looked pretty solid, and with "Mad Max's" unprecedented win, it's easy to see why "Joy" didn't get much love. Lawrence's performance was really what was holding the film together, but otherwise there wasn't anything truly extraordinary about this film, and it definitely didn't deserve kudos. Brie Larson rightly won for "Room," but if Lawrence had taken home the gold I wouldn't have been all that shocked. For the first part of the film everything feels a bit disjointed and confused. Mangano's family is a mishmash of her divorced parents (De Niro and Madsen), who can't seem to get along, her children, her Venezuelan husband (Ramirez) who doesn't work enough and lives in her basement, and her grandmother (Ladd), who also narrates. Though all these characters make a great impression and add eccentricity and flavor to a straight forward success story, they clog up the screen at times with their neuroses and flabbergasting weirdness. If some of these characters had been toned down, other more interesting ones could have been better explored. Joy and her father have this complicated relationship, which seems to be tense at all times, further made rigid by Joy's half-sister Peggy (Rohm). This relationship is never truly explored, past seeing Mr. Mangano give a terrible speech at Joy's wedding. Later in the film he adds to her angst by moving in with her, and becomes her biggest critic, though again it's unclear why. If that had been explored well it would have added something truly real and interesting to a story that feels dated.
When the film deals straight on with Joy's story of adversity and bankruptcy in the face of her ingenuity and chutzpah, it gains its footing. The last half is inspirational, interesting, and uplifting. Mangano really went above and beyond what any person would do and saved herself and her family single-handedly. Movies like this, that show women succeeding in a world that only wants to break them down into bite sized pieces, need to be made. They don't garner as much praise, or make all the money at the box office, but they inspire the next generation of female filmmakers, and people in general.
Hell and Back
(2015)
Hell is the Right Word
3 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
"Hell and Back" is one of the weirder stop motion films I have ever seen. This is not because of its visuals or choices per se, but because I'm not sure who it's for. It's not for children (Seriously, don't let a child watch this accidentally) and it's really not for teens either. Though much of the humor is more juvenile, the film is so self-hating and needlessly dire that it seems to be geared more towards exactly no one. Directed by Ross Shuman and Tom Gianas, "Hell and Back" is a little seen and greatly hated venture that will remain a blight on all those involved.
The story follows three men (?) who work at a pier carnival, and have been best friends since childhood. Played by Nick Swarsdon, TJ Miller, and Rob Riggle, they seem to be ridiculously childish in their approach to life, but love each other like brothers. Two of the friends make a blood oath in front of a book with a crying devil, which sends one of them to Hell. The other two follow him to the bowels of the beast and try to save him from his untimely fate.
The film delves into their misery right off the bat and makes several jokes, including one about an old woman's vagina, and is preceded by homophobia. While all those involved are accomplished (Mila Kunis, Bob Odenkirk, Susan Sarandon etc.) none of them are working with much, and therefore most of the jokes fall flat. The only time when Orpheus' jokes really land is when Nick Swarsdon's character gets off a zinger or characters are bantering. Otherwise a lot of this is simply obnoxious. It's unclear what is up with the Devil's facade, why we need a shot of Mila Kunis' purple devil in nothing but a tank top and underwear, why Orpheus is such a tool, why there is a distended running joke about male rape via a tree, or why the ending is so swift and easy, making the entire film pointless.
There are some good jokes peppered here and there but for the most part everyone involved is just too good for this movie. I seriously want to know what the filmmakers are holding over Susan Sarandon for her to even think about giving voice to the angel Barb. Besides getting to see some pretty great stop motion and hear some okay one-liners, there's no reason you have to see this film.
The story follows three men (?) who work at a pier carnival, and have been best friends since childhood. Played by Nick Swarsdon, TJ Miller, and Rob Riggle, they seem to be ridiculously childish in their approach to life, but love each other like brothers. Two of the friends make a blood oath in front of a book with a crying devil, which sends one of them to Hell. The other two follow him to the bowels of the beast and try to save him from his untimely fate.
The film delves into their misery right off the bat and makes several jokes, including one about an old woman's vagina, and is preceded by homophobia. While all those involved are accomplished (Mila Kunis, Bob Odenkirk, Susan Sarandon etc.) none of them are working with much, and therefore most of the jokes fall flat. The only time when Orpheus' jokes really land is when Nick Swarsdon's character gets off a zinger or characters are bantering. Otherwise a lot of this is simply obnoxious. It's unclear what is up with the Devil's facade, why we need a shot of Mila Kunis' purple devil in nothing but a tank top and underwear, why Orpheus is such a tool, why there is a distended running joke about male rape via a tree, or why the ending is so swift and easy, making the entire film pointless.
There are some good jokes peppered here and there but for the most part everyone involved is just too good for this movie. I seriously want to know what the filmmakers are holding over Susan Sarandon for her to even think about giving voice to the angel Barb. Besides getting to see some pretty great stop motion and hear some okay one-liners, there's no reason you have to see this film.
Hateship Loveship
(2013)
Literary Indie
3 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Based on the short story by Alice Munro, "Hateship, Friendship, Courtship, Loveship, Marriage," this film stars Kristen Wiig as a sad sack caretaker and housekeeper who is thrust into a family situation she doesn't quite understand but wants to. Wiig as Johanna makes for a subdued and yet brilliant performance. Directed by Liza Johnson (of the upcoming "Elvis & Nixon.") this indie film tells the story of a woman beaten down by everything around her, until she took control of her own destiny.
Johanna begins working for an old man (Nolte) who takes care of his granddaughter Sabitha (Steinfeld). Her father (Pearce) killed her mother in a boating accident years ago and is no longer able to care for his daughter. He lives in poverty, is addicted to drugs, and often asks his former father-in-law for money. Seeing Johanna's adoration for her father, Sabitha and a mean spirited friend plan a hoax where they write correspondence to Johanna in his name. Johanna falls for him, and in the meanest move yet, is tricked into travelling to see him in a decrepit motel. The rest of the story follows their courtship and how Johanna changes her life, as well as the life of the man she loves.
Most of the film is truly heartbreaking. Johanna is this solemn, peculiar creature who doesn't seem to have anybody but herself. She has morals, dresses austerely, and only wants the love of a good man. She doesn't push or prod either, but gently maneuvers herself into his life and helps him crawl out of the hole he has fallen down. The film isn't really about Johanna changing herself to be happy, but instead shows that even the quietest and most pitied of people have an inner strength that can do others a world of good. While I wouldn't say this is a great love story, it is a sweet tale of a man given little to no hope finding someone who really believes in him.
There's nothing revolutionary and new about this story, but it is a sweet film that brings out the romantic in all of us. It really is a story about the power of love, and how people can change. While not realistic, it does truly encapsulate the feeling of loneliness and depression one can have while hanging at the end of their rope.
Johanna begins working for an old man (Nolte) who takes care of his granddaughter Sabitha (Steinfeld). Her father (Pearce) killed her mother in a boating accident years ago and is no longer able to care for his daughter. He lives in poverty, is addicted to drugs, and often asks his former father-in-law for money. Seeing Johanna's adoration for her father, Sabitha and a mean spirited friend plan a hoax where they write correspondence to Johanna in his name. Johanna falls for him, and in the meanest move yet, is tricked into travelling to see him in a decrepit motel. The rest of the story follows their courtship and how Johanna changes her life, as well as the life of the man she loves.
Most of the film is truly heartbreaking. Johanna is this solemn, peculiar creature who doesn't seem to have anybody but herself. She has morals, dresses austerely, and only wants the love of a good man. She doesn't push or prod either, but gently maneuvers herself into his life and helps him crawl out of the hole he has fallen down. The film isn't really about Johanna changing herself to be happy, but instead shows that even the quietest and most pitied of people have an inner strength that can do others a world of good. While I wouldn't say this is a great love story, it is a sweet tale of a man given little to no hope finding someone who really believes in him.
There's nothing revolutionary and new about this story, but it is a sweet film that brings out the romantic in all of us. It really is a story about the power of love, and how people can change. While not realistic, it does truly encapsulate the feeling of loneliness and depression one can have while hanging at the end of their rope.
True Story
(I) (2015)
Convicted
3 June 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Like the name implies this is the true story of journalist Mike Finkel's relationship with convicted killer Christian Longo. Brought together by their tendencies to lie, or inflate their egos, the journalist and the convict become friends and eerily enough, learn from each other. Based on the book of the same name, this story is brought to the screen and then aptly butchered by a floundering plot, aimless direction, and slow paced action.
Both Hill and Franco have Oscar nominations to their names, and though they are predominately known for their comedic roles, it makes sense to put them in a film where they explore serious topics. Still, if you're going to put two people with their backgrounds in a dramatic film, it better be a good film. Often it feels like Franco is putting us on, trying to play a child killer while hiding an insidious smirk behind the blank expression he wears for much of the film. Hill does his best, but the role isn't as meaty as past supporting performances in "The Wolf of Wall Street" or even "Moneyball." He's more subdued and anal, and it's not a look that Hill can pull off. Though each is trying to embody their characters, it doesn't feel authentic at the end of the day.
The link between Finkel and Longo is well established. There are many similar things about the two, including how they journal, they want to be taken seriously as writers, and they often twist of the truth to suit their narrative. At the end of the film it's still unclear whether Finkel, seeing these imperfect similarities, is horrified or unmoved. The ending shows Longo as the calculated, willful killer who has tricked Finkel, while also charming others into believing in his plight. Was Finkel seriously shocked about learning his prison pen pal was deranged, or was he more interested in seeing how they diverged in the wood? Either way it's a muddled, uncertain film that doesn't know what it wants to say or how to say it.
Both Hill and Franco have Oscar nominations to their names, and though they are predominately known for their comedic roles, it makes sense to put them in a film where they explore serious topics. Still, if you're going to put two people with their backgrounds in a dramatic film, it better be a good film. Often it feels like Franco is putting us on, trying to play a child killer while hiding an insidious smirk behind the blank expression he wears for much of the film. Hill does his best, but the role isn't as meaty as past supporting performances in "The Wolf of Wall Street" or even "Moneyball." He's more subdued and anal, and it's not a look that Hill can pull off. Though each is trying to embody their characters, it doesn't feel authentic at the end of the day.
The link between Finkel and Longo is well established. There are many similar things about the two, including how they journal, they want to be taken seriously as writers, and they often twist of the truth to suit their narrative. At the end of the film it's still unclear whether Finkel, seeing these imperfect similarities, is horrified or unmoved. The ending shows Longo as the calculated, willful killer who has tricked Finkel, while also charming others into believing in his plight. Was Finkel seriously shocked about learning his prison pen pal was deranged, or was he more interested in seeing how they diverged in the wood? Either way it's a muddled, uncertain film that doesn't know what it wants to say or how to say it.
Tell Your Friends